LEADERSHIP ETHICS: MAPPING THE TERRITORY - Strand Theory

10 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
Paradigm, Shifting Paradigm or Shifty Paradigm?
For an investigation into leadership ethics to be meaningful and useful, it has
to be embedded in the study of leadership. Again, it is worthwhile to make an
analogy to business ethics. If courses and research on business ethics ignore
existing business research and practice, then the subject of ethics would become
a mere appendage, a nice but not a crucial addition to our knowledge about
business and a business school curriculum. Research and teaching in areas like
business ethics and leadership ethics should aim not only at making business
people and leaders more ethical, but at reconceptualizing the way that we think
about the theory and practice of business and leadership. This is why both areas
of applied ethics have to embed themselves into their respective fields.^^
There two ways to understand the current state of leadership studies using
Thomas Kuhn's analysis in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Given the
criticisms ofthe field, one might argue that there exists a paradigm of leadership
studies, based primarily on the work done in business and psychology.^^ Kuhn
says that one way you can tell if a paradigm has been established is if scientists
enhance their reputations by writing journal articles that are "addressed only to
professional colleagues, the men whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be
assumed..." Prior to the establishment of a paradigm, writing a textbook would
be prestigious, because you would be making a new contribution to the field.'^^'^*
Using Kuhn's criteria, there is evidence for the existence of a paradigm of
leadership studies, the evidence is Bass and Stogdill's handbook (now in its 3rd
edition), various symposia on leadership,^^ the kinds of leadership articles that
are accepted to journals, and the literature that is cross-referenced in these
journals.
According to Kuhn, when a paradigm is established and researchers engage in
"normal science," there is little discussion of rules or definitions because they
become internalized by researchers working in that paradigm. Kuhn says, "lack
of a standard interpretation or of an agreed reduction to rules will not prevent a
paradigm from guiding research.''^^ He points out that over time the meaning of
important terms can shift along with theories, which seems to be what has
happened in leadership studies. Kuhn believes that scientific progress would be
impeded if the meaning of terms were overly rigid.
Rost criticizes some research in leadership studies because researchers don't
define leadership. But as Kuhn points out, this sort of definition is not really
necessary if researchers are working in a paradigm, because definitions are
internalized and unarticulated. Rost's second charge is that researchers all have
different definitions of leadership and that the field cannot progress unless there
is a shared definition of leadership.^^ If Rost is correct and researchers have
radically different definitions of leadership, (meaning that leadership denotes
radically different things), then either there never was a well-formed paradigm
(so leadership studies is in a pre-paradigm phase), or there exists a paradigm, and
that paradigm is shifting. In both cases, there would be considerable debate over
definitions. However, if there is a paradigm of sorts and researchers are still
arguing over definitions then there is a third alternative and that is that there is